Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of London Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, it is my understanding that he is an Anglican bishop, but I will let him speak for himself on this matter. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I resist Amendment 79D. This amendment and Amendment 79E in the next group are both motivated by reports that asylum seekers are choosing to convert to Christianity upon arrival in the UK in order to support their claim for asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. Amendment 79E is of deep concern. I will address this in the next group.

Regarding Amendment 79D, I have no objection in principle to this data being collected, apart from the fact that both it and Amendment 79E are motivated by a desire to make an issue of something that is not an issue.

This is not the first time that this House has examined the question of faith-based asylum claims. Under the previous Government, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence on this very topic to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, as noble Lords have heard. Noble Lords will recall that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield referenced the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford’s contributions in a recent supplementary question when addressing claims of the use of Anglican churches as

“a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 4.]

Noble Lords will be aware that not only did the Committee find no evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through forced conversions but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary regarding this claim. From our previous discussions with the Home Office on this issue, we do not believe that the data spoken of in Amendment 79D can easily be extracted. It seems to me that there are many more problems to be solved in our asylum system before addressing this data point.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I want to draw attention to one factor which has been represented to us here. All the evidence seems to be addressed to the Anglican Church, which of course is the Church of England, and for those of us who belong to a disestablished church in another part of the United Kingdom, these matters have never been discussed or raised with us.

Debating an English-only issue in a Bill which relates to asylum seekers across the whole of the United Kingdom is worrisome, but introducing a statutory requirement for breaking down asylum grants by religion risks shifting the focus away from the merits of individual claims towards demographic patterns. The cornerstone of a fair protection system is that every asylum claim must be determined solely on its merits. The Minister told us in earlier debate on this matter that no judgment is taken on cohorts of people; it is solely on the merits of a case.

The objective of the state must be to focus its resources on those fleeing regimes where oppression and violence are a real and present danger. Decisions should not be driven by statistics based on demographic information, such as religious affiliation, but by the specific personal risks of persecution faced by the applicant upon return. Although transparency is welcome, requiring reporting that segregates data by religion risks underpinning policies that lead to blanket refusals or differential treatment that disregards the crucial individual assessment needed for effective asylum decision-making.

We must ensure that our system focuses on those who truly need our help—the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. Based on the principles of individual justice and effective resource management, we reject these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment in my name follows on from the previous group of amendments and seeks to go much further. I have no doubt that the Government will not accept this amendment and that many others in this House will reject it out of hand. The Government have already indicated in answers to the Questions I have tabled to the Home Office that they do not agree with this amendment.

We have seen reports of bathtub conversions in asylum hotels and of multiple asylum seekers in accommodation, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, seeking to convert to Christianity. Concerns have been raised about establishing whether or not these conversions are genuine. I recognise, as a Christian myself, that it is extremely difficult to look into a human heart and say what a person really believes. I also wish to protect our reputation as a country of religious freedom and as a refuge for those fleeing persecution around the world. At the same time, it is a leap of faith beyond any practical considerations to say that every single person in the reports is a genuine convert to Christianity.

We cannot shy away from this area of debate. I will seek to return to this subject during my future work in this House. I care deeply about the institutions of our country and our national culture, which is a Christian culture, and about our established Church, the Church of England. As a Conservative, I believe that we must fight to protect and defend these institutions from forces and individuals who could seek to destabilise and undermine their authority.

When I see our Christian faith being used as a fast track for subverting our British open-heartedness and tolerance, I feel it is simply wrong, and I know this view is shared by the general public. I am afraid I can find no evidence of anyone converting to Islam in order to avoid deportation or to lodge an asylum claim. Perhaps the Home Office Minister, in his response, can correct me if it is the case. It seems to me that it is always Christianity that is used in this way. While as Christians we are called to follow the teachings of Jesus, as policymakers we must be pragmatic and work with our knowledge of human nature, which is not perfect. There is evil in people’s hearts. With humility, we must recognise this and pray for forgiveness, but we must also open our eyes and be honest that incentives are strongly aligned for illegal migrants to lie and cheat, using Christian conversion and possibly other religious conversions too. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I believe that the first duty of our Government is to protect our borders. That means not being a soft touch for abusers and being able to show that our system is robust and discriminates between genuine and fake conversions. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, as noble Lords may imagine, I have deep concerns about Amendment 79E. The World Watch List 2025, produced by Open Doors, found that more than 380 million Christians worldwide were subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith last year, and just under 4,500 were killed for faith-related reasons. Data on the persecution of Christians makes it clear that people are willing to, and indeed do, die for their Christian faith today. We should tread extremely carefully when legislating on such profound matters.

What is more, conversion to the Christian faith is, for most, not like flicking a switch. It is a process that may take years. It is for many Christians not possible to point to a day or hour when they committed their lives to Jesus Christ. John Wesley called it “being strangely warmed”. A public declaration of faith is an important moment in that process, but if that declaration may cost you your life or the lives of those you love, you may think very carefully about when and where you make it. What better evidence in many ways of fear of religious persecution in a country of origin than that a person might wait until they are in the UK to publicly declare their faith? Amendment 79E does not recognise this context. It is also deeply problematic in its denial of the freedom of religion of people living in this country. I need hardly remind noble Lords of the horrors that promoted the creation of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As I said on the previous group in relation to Amendment 79D, under the previous Government, the Home Affairs Select Committee looked at the question of fake religious conversions to support asylum claims. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence to the committee. Not only did the Home Office fail to produce evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through fake conversions, but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary of the committee’s findings, which speaks for itself.

I imagine that there are some asylum seekers who might well believe that converting to Christianity will help their asylum claim. One can hardly be surprised about that, when some politicians keep implying that that is the case. Clergy are not naive. We train them to discern as best they can, through teaching, discussion, reflection, observation and prayer, whether a person, whoever they are, is ready for a public confession of faith through baptism. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, said, no one can see into the heart of another person: that remains between God and that person alone. It is not the job of clergy to assess asylum claims. The Home Office has stated that evidence from clergy or church members in an asylum case does not determine the outcome of a claim.

In January, the Church of England published a guidance document for clergy, Supporting Asylum Seekers; I understand that the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have also published similar materials. I am proud that the church into which I am called to serve welcomes, indeed embraces, any and all who express a genuine, considered and informed decision to follow Jesus Christ. Churches ought not to feel anxious about supporting and baptising asylum seekers if, to their best knowledge, the clergy are confident there is sincere desire for conversion and a commitment to Jesus Christ and discipleship.

We live in a world in which people regularly die for their Christian faith, and where many hide their Christian faith for fear of persecution. Thus it remains just as important now as it ever has been to offer protection, sanctuary and peace to all those who exercise their right to freedom of belief on our shores. Amendment 79E presents a concerning threat to this.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I must start with what may have been a slip of the tongue from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, when she talked about safeguarding this country’s conditions and living standards. In so doing, she mentioned the established Church. I have to say once more that it is the established Church in England; it was disestablished in Wales, and there is the Episcopalian Church in Scotland and so on. If we are trying to protect the nature of our society in its broadest context, we have to recognise that we are very diverse. We are diverse in religion, across nationalities and across language and diverse in all sorts of other ways as well. As a country, we should celebrate that diversity no matter where it comes.

This amendment introduces what I would call an inflexible barrier to protection based solely on the timing of a person’s religious conversion. The long-established principle in our asylum system is that claims must be evaluated strictly on their merits. Amendment 79E mandates a blanket refusal based on a characteristic—post-arrival religious conversion—rather than considering the genuine risks of persecution faced by that individual on return. We must focus ourselves on this matter.

Adopting such a provision would also place the United Kingdom in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention, which is built on core principles including non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement. The timing of religious conversion is a deeply personal matter. If a court or tribunal determines that a person genuinely holds a religious belief, established after arrival in this country, the removal of that belief protection solely because of when the conversion occurred would undermine the foundational commitment to non-refoulement. We must resist the temptation to attempt to fundamentally change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation—an approach which has rightly been scrutinised elsewhere.

We should not tie the hands of the courts and decision-makers by removing their ability to grant protection in cases where genuine risk of persecution has been proven, merely because the threat arises from faith adopted while seeking sanctuary here. For those reasons, we therefore uphold the principle that justice demands we look at the substance of the persecution claims regardless of when the circumstances giving to rise to them developed.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Bishop of London Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has already pointed out, we in this Chamber share the same goal: for people to die with dignity and compassion. They are critical concerns for those who, like me, believe that the Bill is deeply flawed. Noble Lords will know that I am a former government Chief Nursing Officer, and I chaired the UK Commission on Bereavement. As a nurse, a priest, a daughter and a granddaughter, I have had the privilege to be with many people as they die. Most people die well although, as we have heard and will continue to hear, that is not always the case. I have known people to experience some of the most valuable days of their life as it comes to an end, including those with terminal illnesses.

As the noble Baroness, Lady May, has just pointed out, to change the law is to change society. Any law that introduces choice for a few is not limited in its effect to only those few. If passed, the Bill will signal that we are a society that believes that some lives are not worth living. The Bill would become our state-endorsed position, and our NHS would be active in its delivery. It is the role of the House to scrutinise, but there are no amendments to the Bill that could safeguard us completely from its negative effects.

I am concerned for those who will face internal and subtle pressure to end their lives in the absence of adequate palliative and social care or to avoid being a burden to their families. I understand the fear of many that they may be offered free assisted death before they are offered the care and equipment that they may live. I am concerned that we are still in the dark about how the Bill will be integrated into a struggling health and social care system, as the Delegated Powers Committee report has shown. I am concerned that the Bill is unequal to the task of preventing avoidable deaths due to the existing problems of discrimination, inequality and abuse. I am deeply concerned that so many in Parliament are not heeding the voices of professional and representative bodies that are raising the alarm. Above all, the Bill fails in its central claim that it delivers choice. A meaningful choice would see the measures in the Bill set alongside equally available, fully funded palliative and social care services. Without that being offered, this choice is an illusion.

It may not be the will of the House to take the decision on the principle of the Bill today, but I firmly hope that we will do so at Third Reading. If it is necessary, I will table the amendment myself, so the House is given the same opportunity as the other place to decide. Until then, I have no doubt that the scrutiny given to the Bill in the coming stages will make plainer its inadequacies.

As we have heard, much of the debate is about fear: fear of pain, illness, dependency, loss of control and being somehow unrecognisable to yourself and to others. The challenge, however, is that life is not something to be managed or limited when it becomes difficult. Life is often more than we can ever understand it to be. I believe in a God whose very being is life and, in that gift, we can discover meaning, dignity and innate worth, even if we are dying. To speak of God is to speak of the one who never is indifferent to human fragility, but who holds it and tends it. That is why I believe that there is always hope—hope that what looks like an ending is not the last word and hope that, with proper care, support and research, dignity and compassion are still possible. It is this firm belief that compels me to resist the Bill.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of London Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I support this significant Bill tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has articulated very clearly why it is important. First, I want to recognise, on behalf of the Church of England, our own shocking failures in safeguarding and take this opportunity to apologise to victims and survivors of Church abuse. I fully support the introduction of mandatory reporting of child sex abuse and of other abuse, in all contexts. I note the Government’s commitment to doing so in their upcoming police and crime Bill. Today’s debate gives us another opportunity for this important discussion. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing the Bill forward, and to Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions, which I know at times will not be easy.

I have spoken of the need in the Church of England for a reset in safeguarding. This must include a genuinely survivor-focused approach, with independence and mandatory reporting at its heart. Proposals will be brought forward to the Church of England’s General Synod in February, including the introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement in the statutory safeguarding code on managing allegations. We on these Benches want to continue to work with the Government to support the legislation they bring forward on mandatory reporting, but it must include legally precise definitions of the person to whom the duty applies. This Bill will need some amendment to offer that precision. However, I strongly support its principle and stand ready to work with the Government on this vital safeguarding reform, which, as we have already heard, is long overdue.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of London Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I am glad to add my voice on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing it forward.

As the Bishop of London, I see many churches which have stepped in to provide support to newly recognised refugees when the process of support just does not work as it should. Last year, I led a letter signed by 44 other faith and belief leaders in London to raise awareness of the high rates of homelessness for the newly recognised refugees. Many other faith groups and churches found themselves supporting newly recognised refugees who were street homeless. As part of the letter, we called for the Government to extend the support to 56 days. Following the letter, I had a very productive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, when he was in his ministerial post, along with officials, and I pay tribute to him for his willingness to listen and, in fact, his willingness to respond.

We identified a few issues that have already been highlighted that people were facing. First, as we have already heard, 20 days is simply not enough, even if they do everything right. Secondly, the letters are complicated and there are a number of them: the letter for biometric residence permit and notice to quit as well as the decision letter. When we looked, with permission, at these letters, they were often very long, reaching to seven or eight pages and were often unclear. Critically, they did not clearly state the date at which support would end, apart from the notice to quit period, which is only seven days in advance. Of course, if that letter comes late or is delayed in the post, some people were facing only one or two days’ notice. Thirdly, we found that several people had errors with their biometric residence permit which meant that they could not access the support they needed and were still evicted at the end of their support period. These mistakes are incredibly difficult to correct, particularly if it is a spelling mistake.

For these reasons, I support this Bill. After having met the previous Minister and Home Office officials, we continued to work with them. One of the successes is that the letters have become clearer, particularly the letter making it clear when accommodation would end. That date is now much clearer in that letter. I also welcome the workaround simplification of the letters that refugees receive. As regards the pilot that has been announced by the Government, I ask the Minister how it will be evaluated and whether the Government continue to work with newly recognised refugees, so that the communication improvement continues. Finally, I wonder what action the Government are taking to ensure that the administrative systems are appropriately resourced so that they are efficient.

Illegal Migrant Returns Agreements

Lord Bishop of London Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I take what the noble Baroness has said at face value. I have not had any exposure to that issue—it has not come across my desk—but I will take it away and reflect on it. I assure her that there is co-operation between the Irish authorities and the United Kingdom authorities—and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly—on all matters relating to the common travel agreement area.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I welcome the action that the Government are taking to get on top of the asylum backlog and to process claims formerly deemed as inadmissible. I appreciate, therefore, that more individuals may be found ineligible for asylum and may need to return. Therefore, are the Government going to review the current safeguarding policies in place for enforced return and, if so, how?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her question and comments. We will certainly keep that under review. It is important that people have both safeguarding properly implemented and any removal, either forced or voluntary—going back to a question raised earlier—done in as humane a way as possible. I will certainly reflect on the points she has made and give her further clarification in writing.